[Abortion Thread] (YET ANOTHER POLL!) Taking measure.

[Mardla]

Doubt



Many persons who don't have one assert this.

Oh, I meant calling it a soul,and not life. One carries serious implications of bullshittery.

Also, everything is meaningless on a cosmic scale.

You're not everything.

[Jebslund]

I said that the mind and soul are separate, not that it is beyond timespace. It is as a liquid seeping into a porous solid (which, by the way, does not mean there is no distinction between the constituents), not a person using a remote to control a robot.

And the soul *does* time travel, just as the body does. One [smallest unit of time] at a time, and only forward. ;)

Wait, souls exist? I’d love to see evidence for this. Is that what Mardla’s been predicating their argument on?

Pretty much. To be more specific/accurate, the idea that everything in the universe has will and everything that is alive has a soul.

One can no more prove souls (or, at least, the theological construct, as opposed to the catch-all shorthand for sapience and sentience together) exist or do not exist than one can prove the existence or nonexistance of God. It is a matter of faith, rather than science, until such time as a test can be devised to determine a conclusive yes or no. That, however, is a topic for another thread.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

Chemistry, mostly.

Doubt

Doubt all you wish. Atoms exist and interact. Electrons are assholes whose movements are impossible to pin down but are also eminently predictable in how they cause atoms to interact with each other. From the wholly involuntary responses between atoms to us, such simple rules bring forth such wondrous accomplishments.

Trying to attribute any semblance of intent or will to the whole thing almost strikes as insulting... hmm.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

Wait, souls exist? I’d love to see evidence for this. Is that what Mardla’s been predicating their argument on?

Pretty much. To be more specific/accurate, the idea that everything in the universe has will and everything that is alive has a soul.

One can no more prove souls (or, at least, the theological construct, as opposed to the catch-all shorthand for sapience and sentience together) exist or do not exist than one can prove the existence or nonexistance of God. It is a matter of faith, rather than science, until such time as a test can be devised to determine a conclusive yes or no. That, however, is a topic for another thread.

If they cannot be proven to exist, they do not exist.

Seems rather silly to base an argument on something that cannot be proven.

[Kowani]

Oh, I meant calling it a soul,and not life. One carries serious implications of bullshittery.

Also, everything is meaningless on a cosmic scale.

You're not everything.

That's wonderful. Any more groundbreaking revelations you'd like to drop on us today?

[Mardla]

Doubt

Doubt all you wish. Atoms exist and interact. Electrons are assholes whose movements are impossible to pin down but are also eminently predictable in how they cause atoms to interact with each other. From the wholly involuntary responses between atoms to us, such simple rules bring forth such wondrous accomplishments.

Trying to attribute any semblance of intent or will to the whole thing almost strikes as insulting... hmm.

None of this says shit must exist and must do stuff.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

Doubt all you wish. Atoms exist and interact. Electrons are assholes whose movements are impossible to pin down but are also eminently predictable in how they cause atoms to interact with each other. From the wholly involuntary responses between atoms to us, such simple rules bring forth such wondrous accomplishments.

Trying to attribute any semblance of intent or will to the whole thing almost strikes as insulting... hmm.

None of this says shit must exist and must do stuff.

Shit DOES exist, and it does stuff. Nothing is really necessary to tell it to do so.

[Jebslund]

Pretty much. To be more specific/accurate, the idea that everything in the universe has will and everything that is alive has a soul.

One can no more prove souls (or, at least, the theological construct, as opposed to the catch-all shorthand for sapience and sentience together) exist or do not exist than one can prove the existence or nonexistance of God. It is a matter of faith, rather than science, until such time as a test can be devised to determine a conclusive yes or no. That, however, is a topic for another thread.

If they cannot be proven to exist, they do not exist.

Seems rather silly to base an argument on something that cannot be proven.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There are plenty of things we know and can prove to exist that, even 50 years ago, would not have been possible to prove the existence of. Hell, there are things we can prove exist that we couldn't have proven even 10 years ago. I remember when the Higgs Boson was just a concept no one could prove because we didn't have the technology to prove it. Gallileo theorised that, in a vacuum, a feather and a hammer would fall at the same rate. We couldn't prove it until the Apollo missions. "Animolecules" were thought to be behind the spoiling of food hundreds of years ago, but it wasn't until the invention of the microscope that we came to prove and know them as "microorganisms". We could prove that there was an effect, yes, but not the cause behind it. Just as we can prove the natural laws, but not the reason they came to be (and I don't mean the Big Bang theory, either. The question is what caused that, and what caused the laws of nature to be as they are.).

Until the technology to prove or disprove God exists, whether or not He exists is a matter of faith. I respect your right to believe He does not. Respect mine to believe He does and let's get back on topic.

As to basing an argument on things that cannot be proven, it wouldn't be the first time in history.

[Mardla]

None of this says shit must exist and must do stuff.

Shit DOES exist, and it does stuff. Nothing is really necessary to tell it to do so.

Mystical

[Kowani]

If they cannot be proven to exist, they do not exist.

Seems rather silly to base an argument on something that cannot be proven.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There are plenty of things we know and can prove to exist that, even 50 years ago, would not have been possible to prove the existence of. Hell, there are things we can prove exist that we couldn't have proven even 10 years ago. I remember when the Higgs Boson was just a concept no one could prove because we didn't have the technology to prove it. Gallileo theorised that, in a vacuum, a feather and a hammer would fall at the same rate. We couldn't prove it until the Apollo missions. "Animolecules" were thought to be behind the spoiling of food hundreds of years ago, but it wasn't until the invention of the microscope that we came to prove and know them as "microorganisms". We could prove that there was an effect, yes, but not the cause behind it. Just as we can prove the natural laws, but not the reason they came to be (and I don't mean the Big Bang theory, either. The question is what caused that, and what caused the laws of nature to be as they are.).

Until the technology to prove or disprove God exists, whether or not He exists is a matter of faith. I respect your right to believe He does not. Respect mine to believe He does and let's get back on topic.

As to basing an argument on things that cannot be proven, it wouldn't be the first time in history.

The difference being, if I was in, say, the year 1233 in Medieval Europe, me believing in, say, gamma rays, would be ridiculous unless I could prove it. Right and Wrong are immaterial unless you can prove it, and if you can't prove it, you should start trying or stop talking.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

If they cannot be proven to exist, they do not exist.

Seems rather silly to base an argument on something that cannot be proven.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Just because one can't prove it doesn't exist does not mean it does. The main point of this argument is that without evidence to support it, any claims on the existence of a soul have no more weight to them then the claim I might make that I have an invisible pink unicorn tromping about in my backyard, or that my imaginary friend who's a cybernetic timberwolf is totally real.

There are plenty of things we know and can prove to exist that, even 50 years ago, would not have been possible to prove the existence of. Hell, there are things we can prove exist that we couldn't have proven even 10 years ago. I remember when the Higgs Boson was just a concept no one could prove because we didn't have the technology to prove it. Gallileo theorised that, in a vacuum, a feather and a hammer would fall at the same rate. We couldn't prove it until the Apollo missions. "Animolecules" were thought to be behind the spoiling of food hundreds of years ago, but it wasn't until the invention of the microscope that we came to prove and know them as "microorganisms". We could prove that there was an effect, yes, but not the cause behind it. Just as we can prove the natural laws, but not the reason they came to be (and I don't mean the Big Bang theory, either. The question is what caused that, and what caused the laws of nature to be as they are.).

All of these things had a theoretical basis to work off of. The concept of souls doesn't even have that much.

Until the technology to prove or disprove God exists, whether or not He exists is a matter of faith. I respect your right to believe He does not. Respect mine to believe He does and let's get back on topic.

As it is a major factor in why a great number of people snarl and growl at the concept of abortion, I fear that it is necessary to cast severe levels of doubt on the basis of religious belief. The reason for this is that using religion as the basis for an argument amounts to forcing one's own religion upon those who do not share those same beliefs.

I know you have largely been arguing pro-choice points throughout the thread, which shows you have the maturity to understand that not everybody believes the same way you do, or SHOULD believe the same way you do, and for the most part that is good enough for me. Just don't expect me to sit idly by when certain 'philosophers' pop in and start claiming that X-unproven thingiebob is totally real because they read it in a book that had words in it.

My apologies if it seemed I was attacking you directly. One might say I was going for a ricochet.

As to basing an argument on things that cannot be proven, it wouldn't be the first time in history.

Doesn't really change much, honestly.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

Shit DOES exist, and it does stuff. Nothing is really necessary to tell it to do so.

Mystical

Quite mundane. Do not attribute to intent what can just as easily be explained by dumb luck.

Or as one of Terry Pratchett's 'philosophers' in the discworld series was known to say: "Shit just happens, what the hell?"

[Jebslund]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Just because one can't prove it doesn't exist does not mean it does. The main point of this argument is that without evidence to support it, any claims on the existence of a soul have no more weight to them then the claim I might make that I have an invisible pink unicorn tromping about in my backyard, or that my imaginary friend who's a cybernetic timberwolf is totally real.

Not this old strawman... Short version is that we see effects of *something* in the fact that the universe follows natural laws. You choose to believe it has a mundane basis. I choose to believe it was by God's hand that these laws were set in motion.

As it is a major factor in why a great number of people snarl and growl at the concept of abortion, I fear that it is necessary to cast severe levels of doubt on the basis of religious belief. The reason for this is that using religion as the basis for an argument amounts to forcing one's own religion upon those who do not share those same beliefs.

I know you have largely been arguing pro-choice points throughout the thread, which shows you have the maturity to understand that not everybody believes the same way you do, or SHOULD believe the same way you do, and for the most part that is good enough for me. Just don't expect me to sit idly by when certain 'philosophers' pop in and start claiming that X-unproven thingiebob is totally real because they read it in a book that had words in it.

My apologies if it seemed I was attacking you directly. One might say I was going for a ricochet.

I argue pro-choice because I *am* pro-choice. I do not believe a foetus has a spirit prior to having sapience because it is, according to my belief, it is the spirit which manifests as sapience. The spirit is the operating system, the parts of the brain responsible for the processes which enable sapience are the hard drive. Until sapience is achieved (by which point the vast majority of women are already set on keeping the child if feasible), a bundle of nonsapient cells do not outweigh a sapient life. It is the soul, if you wish to call it that, that makes killing without reason a sin, not the fact that it has a pulse or human DNA. One no more installs an OS to RAM than God would put a soul in a vessel that cannot adequately contain it.

[Luminesa]

Doubt



Many persons who don't have one assert this.

Oh, I meant calling it a soul,and not life. One carries serious implications of bullshittery.

Also, everything is meaningless on a cosmic scale.

Nihilism is an unfortunate state of mind.

[Napkiraly]

Oh, I meant calling it a soul,and not life. One carries serious implications of bullshittery.

Also, everything is meaningless on a cosmic scale.

Nihilism is an unfortunate state of mind.

It's for the spiritually and mentally weak.

[Mardla]

Oh, I meant calling it a soul,and not life. One carries serious implications of bullshittery.

Also, everything is meaningless on a cosmic scale.

Nihilism is an unfortunate state of mind.

Lol here I am wasting all this hot air (so to speak) and you come along and nail it with one sentence.

Good job.

[The Free Joy State]

This question of mine -- rather an interesting equivalent about bodily sovereignty v. preserving life at all costs, I thought -- never got answered. I open it up to other pro-lifers:

Of course it shouldn't be, but they have made it so. Thus invalidating any arguments over what is or isn't my business.

Secondarily, thereally is a societal interest in people not dying, this is why privacy laws don't protect murderers. One action (abortion) kills someone. One action, (owning a firearm) doesn't. Which makes the comprison woefully invidious.

So, just to move on that "there is a societal interest in people not dying", and go back to my point about McFall v Shrimp, would you like to overturn that ruling?

A direct yes/no answer: would you like to make it legal to force a person to -- against their will (despite any concerns about their health, because anaesthesia carries risks as does the procedure; despite the time they'd have to take out of their lives to do it; over any religious objections they may have) -- have to donate bone marrow to a born, compatible party?

Would you like to be forced to donate bone marrow to a compatible party?

(And this comparison is pretty direct. The ruling was even made only a few years after Roe v. Wade)

EDIT for clarity: McFall v Shrimp dealt with two first cousins: Robert McFall had anaplastic anaemia. His only match (and best shot of survival -- a bone marrow donation would have given him a 50-60% chance of survival) was his first cousin, David Shrimp. McFall sued Shrimp in an effort to force him to donate and lost (the judge stated forcing someone to donate bone marrow "would defeat the sanctity of the individual and would impose a rule which would know no limits, and one could not imagine where the line would be drawn."). McFall subsequently died.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

Just because one can't prove it doesn't exist does not mean it does. The main point of this argument is that without evidence to support it, any claims on the existence of a soul have no more weight to them then the claim I might make that I have an invisible pink unicorn tromping about in my backyard, or that my imaginary friend who's a cybernetic timberwolf is totally real.

Not this old strawman... Short version is that we see effects of *something* in the fact that the universe follows natural laws. You choose to believe it has a mundane basis. I choose to believe it was by God's hand that these laws were set in motion.

Mine has evidence to support it. Key difference, that.

As it is a major factor in why a great number of people snarl and growl at the concept of abortion, I fear that it is necessary to cast severe levels of doubt on the basis of religious belief. The reason for this is that using religion as the basis for an argument amounts to forcing one's own religion upon those who do not share those same beliefs.

I know you have largely been arguing pro-choice points throughout the thread, which shows you have the maturity to understand that not everybody believes the same way you do, or SHOULD believe the same way you do, and for the most part that is good enough for me. Just don't expect me to sit idly by when certain 'philosophers' pop in and start claiming that X-unproven thingiebob is totally real because they read it in a book that had words in it.

My apologies if it seemed I was attacking you directly. One might say I was going for a ricochet.

I argue pro-choice because I *am* pro-choice. I do not believe a foetus has a spirit prior to having sapience because it is, according to my belief, it is the spirit which manifests as sapience. The spirit is the operating system, the parts of the brain responsible for the processes which enable sapience are the hard drive. Until sapience is achieved (by which point the vast majority of women are already set on keeping the child if feasible), a bundle of nonsapient cells do not outweigh a sapient life.

One could strip a fully grown human being down to their component molecules and not find one speck of soul. If you speak of interactions between molecules, then what you might call the 'soul' is rather specifically just another name for the process by which synapses interact. This raises a number of questions about why some so definitively say that animals do not have souls, but that is a discussion for elsewhere.

It is the soul, if you wish to call it that, that makes killing without reason a sin, not the fact that it has a pulse or human DNA. One no more installs an OS to RAM than God would put a soul in a vessel that cannot adequately contain it.

It is not the soul that makes killing without reason a 'sin', but social structures built up by just as much trial and error as evolution. Different cultures have different priorities, that might make something YOU see as anathema seem to them as a perfectly justified survival policy. This is also a major part of why one of my primary arguments when people say something is 'immoral' is to reply with 'your morals are not universal'. The fact that people have different beliefs is rather a core aspect of my argument.

For instance, my chief priority is equitability. Is the policy 'fair' given the circumstances? In this case I find the status quo (Abortion is Legal) to be fair given a variety of legal and logical foundations. I find arguments to remove or hinder the status quo to be inconsistent and hypocritical and furthermore inequitable.

You have reached your conclusion by another pathway, which is perfectly fine. You were keeping that particular aspect to yourself, and I feel it necessary to apologize that I targeted your comment to take aim at the fact that Mardla keeps trying to push this idea of some 'Will' that exists independently of any semblance of controlling mechanism. They were the one that challenged me with such a position, not you.

[Mardla]

This question of mine -- rather an interesting equivalent about bodily sovereignty v. preserving life at all costs, I thought -- never got answered. I open it up to other pro-lifers:

So, just to move on that "there is a societal interest in people not dying", and go back to my point about McFall v Shrimp, would you like to overturn that ruling?

A direct yes/no answer: would you like to make it legal to force a person to -- against their will (despite any concerns about their health, because anaesthesia carries risks as does the procedure; despite the time they'd have to take out of their lives to do it; over any religious objections they may have) -- have to donate bone marrow to a born, compatible party?

Would you like to be forced to donate bone marrow to a compatible party?

(And this comparison is pretty direct. The ruling was even made only a few years after Roe v. Wade)

Parents being forced to donate is not something I object to, although it's less firm than pregnancy.

[Kowani]

Oh, I meant calling it a soul,and not life. One carries serious implications of bullshittery.

Also, everything is meaningless on a cosmic scale.

Nihilism is an unfortunate state of mind.

Cosmic Scale. That's the important part. It doesn't mean we should do nothing because we're all going to die anyway.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

Nihilism is an unfortunate state of mind.

It's for the spiritually and mentally weak.

I would say the same of religion. So much wishful thinking.

But if that is what you need to get through the day, more power.

Not that I say everything is meaningless, mind you. I simply choose to make my own meaning.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

Nihilism is an unfortunate state of mind.

Cosmic Scale. That's the important part. It doesn't mean we should do nothing because we're all going to die anyway.

As a teacher of physics and astronomy, I got the gist of your message from the get go. You could have phrased it better tho. The universe is homogeneous on the macro scale, but its the stuff that happens at the micro scale that's REALLY interesting.

[Kowani]

Cosmic Scale. That's the important part. It doesn't mean we should do nothing because we're all going to die anyway.

As a teacher of physics and astronomy, I got the gist of your message from the get go. You could have phrased it better tho. The universe is homogeneous on the macro scale, but its the stuff that happens at the micro scale that's REALLY interesting.

[The Free Joy State]

This question of mine -- rather an interesting equivalent about bodily sovereignty v. preserving life at all costs, I thought -- never got answered. I open it up to other pro-lifers:

Parents being forced to donate is not something I object to, although it's less firm than pregnancy.

McFall v Shrimp dealt with a first cousin who was being requested to donate. The first cousin (Shrimp) was the only available match (I'll edit that into the previous post).

What would you think about being forced to donate bone marrow to a cousin, an aunt, uncle, niece, nephew -- with whom you are the only match, but to whom you feel no attachment (not an uncommon scenario in some families)?

[Mardla]

Parents being forced to donate is not something I object to, although it's less firm than pregnancy.

McFall v Shrimp dealt with a first cousin who was being requested to donate. The first cousin (Shrimp) was the only available match (I'll edit that into the previous post).

What would you think about being forced to donate bone marrow to a cousin, an aunt, uncle, niece, nephew -- with whom you are the only match, but to whom you feel no attachment (not an uncommon scenario in some families)?

I personally wouldn't care, but I don't think as a law it would make any sense except for forcing parents.